Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Unique to Matthew's gospel is his account of Herod's slaughter of the children of Bethlehem:

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."

Matthew 2:16-18

Many commentators have expressed doubt about the historicity of this passage because it is not reported by any other source. Because many historical events are only recorded by one source, the argument usually assumes that an event so dastardly was bound to be told by many sources. After all, we are talking about wiping out all of the small children in a city.

As many commentators have noted, however, this assumption is not well founded. Although later traditions ascribed the number of children killed as high as 144,000, that number is too high. Bethlehem was a small town with a population, including surrounding areas, of about 1,000. "[T]he number of infants under two in a population of 1,000, given the birth and infant mortality rates of the time, has been reckoned at less than twenty." Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, World Biblical Commentary, page 37. Obviously the murder of less than 20 children is a heinous crime, "[i]n an era of many, highly placed political murders, the execution of perhaps twenty children in a small town would warrant little attention." Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, page 111.

Though Keener may be overstating things a bit, it should also be kept in mind that Herod reined as King for over 30 years (and as Governor of Galilee for 10 years prior to that) and heinous crimes were not uncommon for him. Most of these crimes arose from Herod’s jealousy (and paranoia) regarding his throne.

Josephus records that Herod, “never stopped avenging and punishing everyday those who had chosen to be of the party of his enemies.” Antiquities 15.2. Herod executed 45 of the wealthiest aristocrats and confiscated their property. He was suspected, with good reason, of having the young High Priest (and son-in-law) Aristobulus drowned. In connection with that event, Herod ordered his wife to be murdered (an order he gave again under similar circumstances). Thereafter, he had his mother-in-law executed, as well as his brother-in-law and his sons.

Another important point to keep in mind is that Jesus’ birth occurred near the end of his reign. This period of time can only be described as Herod at his most paranoid and jealous. He had many sons with ten wives, all of whom wanted their son to become King. On top of that, Herod had lost favor with the Emperor because of his conflict with his Arab neighbors. He finally succeeded in killing his wife, and had three of his sons murdered. While he was dying, Herod ordered that “all the principal men of the entire Jewish nation” be executed upon his death so the nation would mourn on the day of his passing. Fortunately, his orders were not carried out. Antiquities 17:172-178.

Finally, there is good reason to think that Josephus – our main source for Herod – did not provide (or possess) an exhaustive catalogue of Herod’s misdeeds. Josephus was largely dependent on Nicholas of Damascus for his information about Herod. But Nicholas was a courtier of Herod and held him in high regard. Furthermore, it appears that Herod engaged in “the repression of the wilderness Essenes” which is otherwise unknown to us from Josephus. Keener, op. cit., pages 110-11. In all, what we can say from the Josephan evidence is that such a deed would have come to Herod easily and Josephus’ silence on the subject is inconclusive.

Another bit of evidence that has come to my attention is that of Macrobius. He was a pagan author of the late fourth century who did refer to Herod's slaughter of the innocents without being directly dependent on the Gospel of Matthew. The reference to the slaughter of the innocents is found in Saturnalia, which is,

a dialogue in seven books which includes a literary evaluation of Virgil as well as valuable quotations from other writers. Also contained in Saturnalia is the text, with commentary, of Cicero's Dream of Scipio, which was popular in the Middle Ages and influenced Chaucer.

Macrobius did not write about Christianity and shows no other awareness of the Gospel of Matthew. Yet in Satunalia, he writes the following:

When [Augustus] heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered all the boys in Syria under the age of two years to be put to death and that the king's son was among those killed, he said, "I'd rather be Herod's pig than Herod’s son."

We simply do not know what Macrobius’ source of information was for this reference. It is clear that he is not dependent on the Gospel of Matthew. As Paul Barnett notes,

It appears that he has fused two separate episodes into one—the killing of the baby boys and Herod’s murder of a son of his own, who was then an adult and removed in circumstances different from those of the children. It does not seem tat Macrobius merely quotes Matthew’s story, since he was a convinced pagan and the reference to Syria is at odds with Matthew’s version. It is more likely that the killing of the boys was recorded in a pagan source, now lost to us, but preserved in Macrobius.

Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable?, page 103.

Though I agree with Barnett that Macrobius does not rely directly on a Christian source for his information, we can be less confident that ultimately the tradition Macrobuis recounts is independent of Christian influence. The Gospel of Matthew was written around 300 years before. It was the “first among equals” among Christians. Moreover, Christianity had spread deep into Roman culture by this time. Thus, although it is possible that Macrobius recounts a non-Christian source about Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, it cannot be said that this is likely. At the very least, however, Macrobius demonstrates that pagan authors had no reason to doubt such an account – even though found in a Christian source.

Comments

How do we estimate Bethlehem and environs to have a population of 1000?

How do we estimate the population of infants and babies (two and under) to be less than 2%?

And a third important question:

Why do you omit discussion of the silence of Luke? It is gone missing in a source even more relavant than Josephus, the infancy narrative of Luke.

And a fourth question:

Are you aware that the argument from silence is not the only reason to doubt/dispute/deny the historicity of the story? It is, of course, understandable that you might cover just one aspect of the issue in the blog entry.

Lastly, an argument:

Although it is suggested in the blog entry that it is "possible," it is rather unlikely to my mind that Macrobius had obtained his information from a first century non-Christian record. For one thing, the identity of the author and the means of preservation of the work are unexplained. More importantly, would a first century record have gotten it so wrong as to extend the execution from the area of Bethlehem to all of Syria? (I believe that Judea, Samaria, and Galilee were regarded as a southern extension of Syria, somewhat like--to use an analogy we both understand--Orange County is a part of the Los Angeles metropolitan area--except that Palestine may not even have been clearly not a part of Syria, even in a technical sense, after the Second Jewish Revolt.) On the other hand, notice that a figure of 144,000 is imagined per your statement. This is unfathomable for something restricted to the village of Bethlehem and the nearby proximity. Notwithstanding that the figure is symbolic, this seems to demand the explanation that Christians in later centuries were saying that the massacre was all over Judea (if not a wider imagined scope), which would explain Macrobius's comment that the massacre happened in Syria. He got it through a Christian source (though he may have heard it at a dinner party from a pagan friend or something--it is a good pun in Greek between 'pig' and 'son').

By the way, Layman, I wish you would join us in our study of Greek at Ebla. I am now an administrator and would happy to lift the suspension (which I don't really understand why it was put in--you're one of the most reasonable discussion partners one could ask for these subjects).

Popular posts from this blog

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated.

In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article. Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I h…

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here.]

Having explained why, as a Christian, I do not hold to what many people (Christian and sceptic) have considered the 'party line' that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, I will now explore this issue from a deeper philosophical perspective.

A Christian (or other religious theist) who accepts a faith/reason disparity will usually do so for religious reasons. His argument that these two aspects must be mutually exclusive (or at least need not have anything to do with each other) will be grounded on positions and presumptions which usually proceed from a devout loyalty to God's status, or from authority of specifically religious leaders, or from the structure of religious ritual, or some combination thereof.

And a sceptic who accepts a faith/reason disparity might do so only because, as far as he can tell, his opposition has chosen that grou…

It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy with the concept of miracles. So should we all be watchful not to believe too quickly because its easy to get caught up in private reasons and ignore reason itself. Thus has more than one intelligent person been taken by both scams and honest mistakes. By the the same token it is equally a danger that one will remain too long in the skeptical place and become overly committed to doubting everything. From that position the circular reasoning of the naturalist seems so reasonable. There’s never been any proof of miracles before so we can’t accept that there is any now. But that’s only because we keep making the same assumption and thus have always dismissed the evidence that was valid. At this point most atheists will interject the ECREE issue (or ECREP—extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or “proof”). That would justify the notion of remaining skeptical about miracle evidence even when its good. The…

Lately, I have been listening to a series of lectures by Hubert Dreyfus, Ph.D., a Philosophy professor at U.C. Berekley, concerning the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. The lecture has been very interesting, and while I think that Professor Dreyfus has some questionable interpretations of the Bible, his discussions have given me a greater understanding of Kierkegaard's view of faith. Most importantly, it has helped me clarify in my own mind the use of the illustration of a Knight of Faith and the example of Abraham and Isaac.

The Two Knights of Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard, the great Danish philosopher of the 19th Century, can be considered the father of modern existentialism. In his work Fear and Trembling, he wrote about the difference between two types of people whom he called the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith. In Fear and Trembling, , Kierkegaard identifies Abraham as a Knight of Faith. In his lectures, however, I get the sense that Professor Dreyfus, who I ac…

Money-hungry televangelists taking advantage of the devotion of the poor? Pedophile priests taking advantage of the young? The apocalypse industry? Its syndication in the tabloids? Another big-name preacher succumbs to sexual temptation or to egotism? Christian factions involved in name-calling melee? In-house church politics alienating God-loving members?

Even if they sound familiar, I suspect that none of those will become the next big church scandal. I think there are two huge scandals that we do not see clearly enough. First, that we are not tending our own houses well enough to stop many of these others before they become scandals. We see them coming; where is our outcry? Second, we are not living lives of such active mercy and compassion as to completely dwarf the scandals in comparison.

Wait, but aren't there Christians living lives of mercy and compassion? Sure, and there many of them. Are they notable? Sure, all of them. I don…

I have always contended that the primary reason to believe in Christianity is because its true. I have said in prior blogposts that if Christianity were false, we should abandon it. Why? Because Christians, who are followers of the one who identified himself as "the way, and the truth and the life" (John 14:6), should be dedicated to the truth above everything else.

Frank Turek, proud purveyor of Cross-Examined, has posted a video entitled "One Question You Should Always Ask an Unbeliever." It is pretty insightful, and the question that should always be asked really does get to the heart of the earnestness of the unbelievers in their views.

If

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian? It's a pretty straightforward question. The straightforward answer should be either yes or no. In a sane world, I would expect almost anyone answering the question in an equally straightforward manner would answer yes, but Turek points out that some of the people to…

﻿ During a recent discussion of the origin of
life on Facebook some atheist
friends challenged me to get up to speed on abiogenesis research and understand
that life has essentially been created by scientists in a laboratory. To prove
the point they directed me to an article at the Daily Mail, "Scientists Create Artificial Life."[1]Given that
scientists have created a living bacterium, they suggested, there remains no reason
for thinking that the creation of life requires the intervention of God. So I'm
supposed to think that the mystery of life's origin has been solved and any
suggestion otherwise invokes the "God of the gaps" fallacy. Now as mentioned on the Facebook thread, I had issues with all this, beginning with the article itself: 1.
The misleading headline. There's a huge difference between creating artificial
life from nothing but chemicals, as the headline implies, and reverse
engineering an existing bacterium to produce a "rebuilt" v…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.